By Josh Hammer
Monday, January 27, 2020
Cultural progressives, who reject the very humanity of
unborn children but confidently assure us that there are upward of 70 distinct
genders, tend to have an uneasy relationship with the truth. And the
proliferation of transgender pronouns — the use of biologically inaccurate
pronouns to describe those afflicted with gender dysphoria — is among the more
pernicious tools in the broader arsenal that progressives use to have us
question that truth.
Earlier this month, in U.S. v. Varner, a divided
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit boldly refused to
appease those who would muddle truth. Over the dissent of a Clinton-nominated
judge who used female pronouns in his opinion to refer to the biologically male
defendant, the majority refused to subordinate the integrity of the judiciary
to a litigant who had moved to require the court to address him as something
other than what plain English would indicate he is. In so doing, the Fifth
Circuit panel has provided a roadmap for how public officials interested in
preserving the commonality and vitality of the English language can resist
contemporary progressivism’s attempts to obfuscate truth through the
propagation of biologically inaccurate and linguistically imprecise transgender
pronouns.
Writing for the Varner majority, Trump-nominated
judge Kyle Duncan first observed that “no authority supports the proposition
that we may require litigants, judges, court personnel, or anyone else to refer
to gender-dysphoric litigants with pronouns matching their subjective gender
identity.” Second, because “federal courts today are asked to decide cases that
turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity,” Judge Duncan feared
that the court’s use of subjectively felt but biologically inaccurate pronouns
would “unintentionally convey” a “tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying
legal position.” Third, referring to “Pronouns—a How To Guide,” a colorful
five-column-by-nine-row matrix from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
LGBTQ+ Resource Center, Duncan argued that “deploying such neologisms” could
“well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear” and could
“could hinder communication among the parties and the court.”
Ultimately, the panel majority logically “declined to
enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.” Duncan’s courageous
refusal to engage in it amounts, in progressive parlance, to “deadnaming” or
“misgendering.” For transgender activists and the rest of the “woke” mob, such rogue
behavior is akin to malicious aggression. But it is reflective of both the
biological truth that sex is immutable and the linguistic truth that, for a
language to remain viable, words must have readily discernible meanings.
To capitulate to the Pandora’s box of transgender
pronouns is to pretend that, exceedingly rare intersex exceptions aside, there
is more to sexual differentiation than the duality of chromosomal male and
chromosomal female. To yield to the soft tyranny of transgender pronouns is to
pretend that gender dysphoria is an anodyne lifestyle on which societal
legitimacy should be conferred, not a psychological malady requiring compassion
and psychological treatment. It is to act as if simple words that have meant
the same thing for centuries can change their meanings overnight without
ruinous consequence for the language’s durability. It is to encourage the
premature sexualization of children and accede to often irreversible tampering
of their hormones. It is to undermine the ancient Hippocratic oath: “First, do
no harm.” Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, maintains that
to encourage “surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and
promote a mental disorder.”
To be complicit in the legitimization of transgender
pronouns is, in short, to assist the mainstreaming of a destructive lie. In
warping our language to promote the lie, we hinder our ability to stand athwart its corrosive
effects. The precise use and ubiquitous acceptance of words is a necessary
precondition for the survival of a common language; that is doubly true when
the words at issue are not abstruse but function as basic means by which we
distinguish between the two sexes. True, Antonin Scalia once warned that “words
change meaning, and often in unpredictable ways.” But surely that dynamic
cannot apply to rudimentary linguistic building blocks such as pronouns.
Let us state the obvious: A man remains today a man, and
a woman remains today a woman. To pretend otherwise, however well intended the
obfuscator may be, is a lie against human nature and leading already to the
Orwellian “gender transitioning” of innocent preteens.
The Fifth Circuit has blazed a trail for public officials
who would seek to defend biological and linguistic truth against the
relativists. It is crucial that other judges and politicians alike now follow
Judge Duncan’s lead. Nothing less than truth itself is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment